Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3268/2026 of TAPAN MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 8 October 2026
DL-10 Court No.37 [Bench ID-265691] (AD) (Rejected) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M. ( A ) 3268 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to
08.10.2026
DL-10
Court No.37
[Bench ID-265691]
(AD)
(Rejected)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
C.R.M. (A) 3268 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482
of
the
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Bidhannagar Cyber Crime Police Station Case No.70 of 2024 dated 04.04.2024, G.R.
No.393/24 under Sections 419 /420 /406 /467 /468 /471
/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, started on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the de facto complainant before the Inspector in Charge, Bidhannagar Cyber Crime P.S.
dated 04.04.2024.
And
In the matter of: Sri Tapan Mondal
….petitioner
Mr. Sumbhunath De, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Samrat Chakraborty, Advocate
…for the petitioner
Mr. Biswajit Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Arka Naha, Advocate
… for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Police case relates to, inter alia, cheating.
3. Apparently, a sum in excess of Rs.2.3 crores was taken for the purpose of installation of mobile tower. Tower was never installed.
4. Materials in the case diary suggest that the petitioner received a portion of such sum.
5. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is likely to affect the quality of the investigations.
6. Charge sheet is yet to be submitted.
7. In such circumstances, I am unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
9. C.R.M. (A) 3268 of 2026 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
ABHIJIT DAS Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS Date: 2026.10.09 11:26:42 +05'30'